e2save problem (merged threads)

highet

due to previous hit and miss experiences of e2save signing for recorded delivery items i sent last claim special delivery at cost of £4.30 as RM claim special delivery mail sent separately,high security,electronically tagged and tracked etc and thats why high fee - website tracking claims 3 days later that its still ''progressing through our system'' - when called they have apparently ''lost'' a whole bag of special delivery items somewhere between edinburgh and crewe - what a ''high security'' system - as stated earlier E2Save and RM seem to be competing for who has crappiest system - now thinking that the only way to ensure claim gets there is to go to Crewe and deliver it myself by hand

watchzeitgeist

see www.mobiletoday.co.uk phone box direct (which includes cool new mobile) have gone into liquidation! Im sorry to be the bearer of bad news (on my first day of being an mse member!) But I hope this information may help someone as it is extremely hot off the press!

Paul

p.s Sorry, this is nothing to do with e2save, but its along the same lines and I am hoping will make you all re-think taking any cashback deal! there are no guarentees!

mobilejunkie

wolfman; the deal you "messed up" is in fact precisely what I've been expecting for the last 3 months or so. Up until now I haven't come across this happening to anyone (despite several other problems people HAVE been having with cpw comnpanies now). You have the dubious honour of the being the first - although I have been expecting an avanlanche of people with your particluar situation.

I have been warning about this since I became aware that they aren't following the legal t&c people signed up to. I have also stated repeatedly that it meas all you have to do (provided you HAVE followed the legal t&c is sue) as outlined on my thread.

By my reckoning the first lot being unjustly denied all claims because of this should have started happening around mid-October. I have been puzzled why a mass of victims hasn't appeared in the last couple of weeks. I think the numbers would run into the hundreds, if not the thousands, although most won't be on these forums and maybe some haven't raised it before (like you?).

I suggest again to people;

1) make sure you HAVE, READ and UNDERSTAND the legal t&c because they are your salvation regardless of whatever cpw my say at any give time;

2) by all means try and comply with BOTH sets of t&c - but ALWAYS with the legal ones;

3) if they decline your claims when you have met the legal t&c, either let them keep your money or sue. It's a straightforward choice - nowadays they seem to want to be their own law, which they cannot be unless YOU let them!

wolfman - hopefully you NOW have a clear understanding of BOTH situations with your contracts - AND your options.

earthgirl2

Hi,
I sent my 6th bill and was given the cash back, and then the 8th - got a text to say the bill had been received, and it was in time, so I was expecting a response within 30 days.

E2Save are now a month late after the 30 days. I am about to send them a letter threatening court action if its not dealt with within the next month.

I intend to do this - has anybody took court action before against E2Save? What has happened? Do you have to wait until the full contract is up to take them to small claims?

Thanks,
Liz

mobilejunkie

I bet you sent it to the old address then. Takes a long time now from there it seems. You don't have to wait to send the LBA if they haven't paid within the time specified in the t&c. Just check it IS 30 and not 45 days as well. I'd also give them 14 days and not a month. That is, however, up to you!

wolfman

mobilejunkie wrote: »

wolfman; the deal you "messed up" is in fact precisely what I've been expecting for the last 3 months or so. Up until now I haven;t come across this happening to anyone (despite several other problems people HAVE been having with cpw comnpanies now). You have the dubious honour of the being the first - although I have been expecting an avanlanche of people with your particluar situation.

Wooo I'm the first. Cheers for the help and sorry for causing any stress. I was actually quite familiar with the terms (mainly focusing on the cashback dates) apart from that one part, the 30 day allowance period. It was just a matter of reading it to the word.

I spoke to the cashback team. They tried reading out the terms to me (their new ones), I had to stress that they weren't the terms and conditions at the time I signed up for the deal. I also had to email (fwd) them the email (with attached terms) that I was originally sent.

They're currently dealing with it, but I will be chasing them up on it tomorrow.

And yes I do understand what you're saying now , and how people are misunderstanding their deal. The missus however, her deal was taken a month or so later, and her terms state 30 days from the cashback date, unlike mine which states from the required bills date.

mobilejunkie

Er... wrong again! She has two sets of t&c. Try downloading the full set rather than the initial ones on the website for the deals or what's in her email. She got the email AFTER she signed up to the full version on the website. As I keep saying - it's not that straightforward! Even the t&c are contradictory within themselves - that alone against each other. This company has only started using detailed written t&c to speak of since about May, when it simply stole someone else's without bothering to read them. Now it's intent on operating the same way as one of its now defunct offshoots, regardless of ANY t&c (probably because the IIC came across from that company just before he closed it down).

wolfman

Ah oops I meant the ones they sent her (although as you say they aren't the ones she signed up to). Was just mentioning as both of my terms (the full ones and ones I received via email) referred to "from the required bill". Where as her's the full says one thing, and the ones she was sent another.

So I think I may not quite be the first, although they did still try to read out different terms to me, but I have two sets of terms to prove them otherwise, whereas she only has one.

mobilejunkie

Lol! Simple, ain't it? I know about the 30 days inconsistency within each particular set. Why isn't she the first? You're the first person to come on here and state this problem. I am really puzzled by only one thing in all this, actually - WHY has it taken so long for just one to appear? I must have been out in my calculations by a couple of weeks, perhaps. But now you can the the particular problem (rejection of all claims despite following the proper t&c) which I've been warning about for quite some time! Was beginning to think I'd have egg on my face - but now you understand you must surely agree that maybe HALF of all takers will be declined? Most people don't seem to send their claims off immediately and they will often have only a week or two to get them their under the rules cpw are following. Naturally, there's more to it than this (I figured out all the permutations as soon as someone else discovered what they were saying and posted that on a thread - after which I checked it out).

Still, YOUR redress is clear and straightforward and enables you to claim ALL the cashback in one go now unless the LBA fulfills one of it's other functions! Not so bad?

wolfman

I've emailed them again (OSPS) but no response yet. I'll call this afternoon I think.

I've also contacted Ofcom, but they don't regulate cashback deals. They gave me the number for Trading Standards though, who can help out. I basically want an email address of theirs to copy in on my correspondance with OSPS. They also advised letting the Network know of this too.

I'll wait until I've called again to see how things are progressing.